NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1948)

CHARLES A. BATSON, Editor JUSTIN MILLER, President A. D. WILLARD, JR., Executive Vice-President C. E. ARNEY, JR., Secretary-Treasurer KENNETH H. BAKER Director of Research RICHARD P, DOHERTY Director of Employee-Employer Relations HAROLD FAIR Director of Program Depart¬ ment ROYAL V. HOWARD Director of Engineering DOROTHY LEWIS Coordinator of Listener Activity (New York City) FRANK E. PELLEGRIN Director of Broadcast Adver¬ tising DON E. PETTY General Counsel ROBERT K. RICHARDS Director of Public Relations ARTHUR C. STRINGER Director of FM Department political broadcasts, and held that therefore stations cannot “censor” such broadcast scripts, even though they contain libelous or slanderous matter. It was this proposed decision which brought disagreement in and out of the FCC, with most observers doubting that the decision could actually protect under state libel laws. In the WWDC opinion and order, the FCC renewed the license, and took occasion to discuss its concept of the public interest, with relation to the broadcasting of race results. WWDC had filed a petition for a declaratory ruling that it could properly broadcast such results as long as other stations in the area did so. The FCC ruled that such broadcasts are legal in any event, but reiterated its belief in its power of “over-all program review.” In the Port Huron proposed decision. Commissioner I Hyde concurred, but felt that liability for libelous ■statements is a matter for the Congress and the courts, not the FCC. Commissioner Jones, in a separate opinion, held that the broadcast had not been political in the first place. Judge Miller Agrees with Jones. NAB President Justin Miller after a study of the Port Huron pro¬ posed decision, said: “I am 100 per cent in accord with the separate opinion of Commissioner Jones.” The Port Huron case arose when the station refused to carry a broadcast by a candidate for city commis¬ sioner, on the ground that the script contained al¬ legedly libelous material. The station then refused to carry any broadcasts in that political campaign. The FCC decision said that this was an act of censor¬ ship, even though the Communications Act says that stations are not obliged to carry political broadcasts, and in effect ruled on the subject that: 1[ The legislative history of Section 315 of the Com¬ munications Act makes it clear that Congress did not intend licensees to have any right of censorship over political broadcasts. Radio stations, in such cases, are in the same posi¬ tion as public utilities or common carriers. (The proposed decision cited a case in the Circuit Court of Appeals involving allegedly libelous material in a telegram transmitted by Western Union, in which the Court held that the telegraph company was not liable.) Commissioner Jones’ separate opinion held that: H A station has no obligation to carry political broadcasts. H The refusal to carry any political broadcasts is not an act of censorship. TI The cancellation of contracts with candidates to carry such broadcasts does not constitute censorship. Tf The licensee is under no circumstances obligated to carry political broadcasts containing defamatory material. T The FCC has no authority to concern itself with the liability of broadcasters under the libel laws. ^ The Commission was improperly using its quasi¬ judicial processes to accomplish a rule-making or leg¬ islative function which can be performed only after public notice and opportunity for hearing, under the Administrative Procedure Act. Horse Race Opinion. Less controversial than the Port Huron case, the WWDC opinion and order on horse race results contained equally interesting enun¬ ciations of philosophy. The Commission said that since the broadcast of in¬ formation concerning horse racing is not illegal “the problems . . . are essentially those presented by any type of program service which appears to be of definitely limited appeal, of interest to a small segment of the total possible listening audience in the com¬ munity. Thus, as to such program service it must be asked: What is the nature of the interest served by the particular type of program service? What is the place of that interest in the life of the community? What are the affirmative values to be realized by the satis¬ faction of that interest? What are the possible detri¬ mental effects of the satisfaction of that interest? What other interests are excluded and to what extent, by the particular specialized program service? These are not questions to be resolved in terms of the private moral judgments or esthetic and other values of either individual licensees or the men who compose the Com¬ mission. They must rather be resolved in terms of that open-minded, well-informed, judgment, sensitive to all aspects of the life of the community without which the criterion of the public interest must become a meaningless cipher utterly devoid of the power to give guidance and to make radio broadcasting an affirmative contribution to the life of the nation, as Congress intended it to be.” After discussing the reasons why various people listen to horse racing programs and the various types of racing activities w’hich are permitted in the various states, the Commission said that “another factor in the presentation of horse racing information is the fa¬ cility and urgency with which the information is pre¬ sented, such as the interruption of programs to an¬ nounce such information. Another factor which is part of the total picture is the identity and interest of the sponsor . . . whether it be a merchandising or service enterprise of general character, or whether it (Continued on next page) FEBRUARY 9, 1948-100